Introduction

It may seem odd for someone who identifies as a "Traditionalist"
to be penning an essay with this title. I hope that it will become clear
what I mean by it and why I am writing this. In brief, I shall argue that
clericalism has been a dominant force in the Church for too long; that
it is contrary to the Gospel, and that it has at long last brought the
Church to its knees. To quote Our Lady of Garabandal
"Many priests, bishops and cardinals are leading the faithful to perdition".

I should make it clear that I shall not be arguing
that the sacramental hierarchy of deacon, priest and bishop is redundant,
or that the laity have no need of the ordained priesthood. I shall, however,
argue that the relationship between the people of God and their ordained
servants requires significant realignment.

Authority in the Church

Part of what the sacraments do is grant certain kinds of
authority.
This is especially true of Holy Orders, which is precisely the means of
passing on the authority to confect the other sacraments. The complication
of "jurisdiction"
then arises. I view this as the regulation by a legally superior
extrinsic authority (e.g. a bishop or other ordinary) of intrinsic authority
already possessed by the cleric in question. In case of emergency, such
ordinary extrinsic regulation always fails; and even a defrocked heretical
priest is able to validly absolve. Putting things the other way round:
in normal circumstances, the holders of sacramental authority within the
Church defer to each other according to a pattern of behaviour codified
as canon law and analysed in terms of "who has jurisdiction over whom and
what".

Prophets
and Teachers

Hierarchical authority; that which is based on sacramental guarantees,
is not the only form of authority that operates within the Church. It has
to contend with that of Prophets and Teachers. Whereas priestly autority
and kingly authority are largely directed towards communities and people
in general, the prophet and teacher is generally concerned with individuals.

The Prophet is a charismatically inspired proponent of God's Word. Obvious
ecclesial examples are Stephen Protomartyr, Athanasius of Alexandria, Francis
of Assisi, Catherine of Sienna, Philip Neri, Ignatious Loyola and John
Henry Newman. A prophet may be a member of the hierarchy or he may not
be. He might even be a woman! He or she is typically not a comfortable
or easy person for the hierarchy to get on with. They will spend a good
deal of their time denouncing complacency and error and implicitly criticizing
those in high places. The authority of the prophet is based on his
authenticity:
the connection that he has with God and his personal commitment to be faithful
to the truth that is shown to him. The characteristic temptation of the
prophet is to mistake his own subjective prejudices for God's objective
vision.

The Teacher is the proponent of reason and understanding within the
Church. Obvious examples are Origen
and St Thomas Aquinas. Nowadays, he or she is likely to be an academic
theologian. Once more, this role is not an easy one for the hierarchy to
come to terms with. The temptation of the priest is to coerce: to analyse
situations in terms of the exercise of power, though this type of analysis
should be foreign to the Christian Community! The Teacher, by contrast,
seeks to understand and then to persuade: not to define and forbid. The
authority of the teacher is based on his personal expertise.
The characteristic temptation of the teacher is to show off his own skill
in order to gain the admiration of pupils, at the expense of truth.

Each of these dynamics has its proper place in the life of the Church.
The Prophet encourages and denounces; the Teacher explains, criticizes
and persuades; the Priest listens and decides.

Holy Orders

It should be noted the authority granted by Holy Orders typically has two
(quite distinct) roles. The
first is the authority to confect the sacraments. I believe that no
matter how much I might want to transform bread and wine into the Body
and Blood of Jesus, I cannot do so - because I haven't been given the authority
to do so. The same goes for the other four sacraments which have to be
confected by a priest or bishop. This kind of authority is enabling.
Without it something is impossible, with it the thing becomes possible.
The
second species of authority within the Church is "regulatory" authority.
This might also be termed "pastoral" or "juridical". It is, in St Paul's
terms, the "discernment of spirits", and is in the last analysis disabling.
I don't mean by this that it is either bad or harmful; just that it is
only ever really exercised by "saying no". Those at the top of any hierarchy
rarely have the opportunity to take any initiative
that makes things better in practical terms. At best they can try and
persuade or force those under their charge to adopt certain policies. When
they do so, they act more by virtue of their personal credibility and reputation
than by their status: more as a prophet than as a priest. It is much easier
to stop something from happening, by issuing a condemnation; than to initiate
something
good! In fact, this is the prime role of hierarchical authority: to
forbid and to warn of danger, as a shepherd constrains his flock to keep
away from the cliff edge, from the lair of the wolf, or from poisonous
vegetation.

The
Episcope

The "overseer" or Bishop has full personal authority and is only subject
to the wishes of other bishops by being persuaded or by full juridical
process. Of course, in the matter of heresy a Bishop (even
the Pope) is in the same position as the most humble member of the
laity. If, objectively, he culpably deviates from the scope of orthodoxy,
he ceases to be a Catholic and looses all right to exercise juridical authority.
Even a competent lay person might be able to judge that a particular Bishop
was heterodox and so, in necessity: ignore; resist or repudiate the regulatory
action or condemnation of such a person. Of course, for the sake of good
order, for it to become public knowledge that a Bishop has lost any legitimate
scope of action a clear judgement to this effect is necessary from a competent
authority. This would normally be the appropriate Patriarch of his own
initiative; his curia acting on his authority; or some suitable Synod.

The
Presbyter

The "elder" or presbyter is - according to the teaching of Ignatius
of Antioch - the delegate of the bishop. He has full authority to act
on behalf of the bishop, sacramentally. However he does not have the bishop's
full discretion to "bind and loose". He has the role of implementing the
bishop's policy, not of determining such policy himself. Given the confusion
between intrinsic sacramental authority and extrinsic juridical authority
(note that a bishop might, with good cause, grant a lay person jurisdiction
in certain matters) it is not absolutely clear whether a bishop is "just"
a presbyter "with jurisdiction" or whether an additional character is imprinted
on the soul by Episcopal Consecration. The pattern of ministry of the Early
Church is equivocal. On the
one hand the presbyter is sometimes described almost as "the bishop's lackey",
and of a lower status than the deacon; on the other it was common place
for local Churches to be governed by councils of elders: which sounds more
like a group of presbyters, with one or two senior members that were "first
among equals". The Roman system of Cardinals itself testifies to this second
tradition: Rome did not have a Monarchical Metropolitan Bishop. Each of
its suburbs had its own Bishop. Moreover the presbyters and deacons of
the Roman Church had roles in its governance.

The Deacon

The "servant" or deacon has no "sacramental authority" whatever. He is
not any kind of priest, except in the sense that all Christians are priests.
Nevertheless, he shares in the pastoral care and governance of the Church.
In the past, deacons have served as the "Chief of Staff" of Bishops, as
countenanced in the title "Arch Deacon", a role common in the Anglican
Church, but always held by a "priest". Given that Jesus came into the world
"to
serve and not to be served", the diaconate has been understood and
described by some commentators as the prime and definitive form of ministry
within the Church. The deacon has no authority to bless or curse; to forbid
or to allow. He can only lead and mould the fellowship by persuasion and
by example. This is to act out the role of Christ in every waking moment,
to be a living icon presenting Jesus to society. Whereas the roles of "elder"
and "overseer" necessitate a certain distance from the common and the worldly,
the role of "servant" involves an intimacy with the secular and mundane.

Amusingly, the Patriarch of Rome, delights in the title "Deacon of the
Deacons of God", on the basis that Jesus said that "the
Ruler must be the Servant of All". If only the typical occupant
of that august see behaved in a manner commensurate with this title!

Baptism and Confirmation

The two other "sacraments of initiation" also confer authority. Every baptized
Christian is called to be a witness to the Kingdom values of the Gospel
in his or her everyday life. All Christians are called to exercise a ministry
of hospitality, compassion and friendship
towards each other and to the world at large. This is to "act in the role
(person) of Christ", which is exactly what the ordained priest does liturgically,
when he stands at the altar and says "this is my body" and "this is my
blood". Just as it is the fact that the priest plays this role that constitutes
him as a priest within Christianity, it is the fact that every Christian
has a similar role that makes all members of the Church priests, properly
so called. The title "pontifex": bridge builder between God and
(wo)mankind, was appropriated to Catholic Bishops from the vocabulary of
the religion of pagan Rome. It is equally applicable to all followers of
Christ: who are called to be peace-makers and to befriend the unloved,
marginalized and outcast, so mediating to them the God
who is Love.

I believe that (among other things!) the sacrament of Baptism gives
formal legitimacy to a person's testimony as a Christian. Because one is
baptized, one is a member of the Church and is both entitled and obligated
to speak and act on behalf of the Community and on behalf of God. I further
believe that the main point of the sacrament of Confirmation
(Chrismation) is that it gives a further and specific authority to speak
and act on behalf of Christ, together with the graces necessary to do so:
"Think
not what you will say, because Holy Spirit will give you the words".

The evil of Clericalism

One of the main failings of the Catholic Church in the early twentieth
Century, arguably its only failing, was institutional clericalism. "The
Church" was almost identified with "The Hierarchy". So the phrase "to go
into the Church" meant "to become a priest". Moreover, Bishops were uncritically
thought of as "Presbyters with Jurisdiction" and deacons as "Presbyters
in Training". So, in effect, the Catholic Church (while professing belief
in the three-fold Apostolic ministry) had adopted a "presbyterial" notion
of Church order, with the Pope as Presbyter in Chief with jurisdiction
over every one and every thing! This loss of appreciation of the proper
diversity and multi-dimensionality of hierarchical ministry both contributed
to and fed off the loss of any understanding that there were other significant
forms of authority or modes of action native and proper to the Church.
Of course, Sacred Tradition was always quite at variance with this heteropraxis.
As I have already said, various saints exercised prophetic roles
in the Church (e.g. St Catherine of Sienna, who condemned Pope Gregory
to his face, saying "Alas, Most Holy Father! At times,
obedience to you leads to eternal damnation", and St Francis of
Assisi whom Jesus commanded "to rebuild my Church"
and who remained a deacon through the whole of his life).

The Minor Orders

From the earliest day a wide spectrum of minor
orders existed within the Church: doorkeeper, exorcist, lector, acolyte
and subdeacon. Originally, I suppose, these were official roles given to
"prominent lay folk". They had a large
share of pastoral work, along
side the clergy, and a limited role in liturgical celebrations.
Their existence would have incidentally served to further blur the practical
distinction between "priest and people" already partly bridged by the prominent
role of the deacon and to make it obvious that authority was diverse and
spread abroad within the Church.

Unfortunately, these minor orders have now been abolished, at least
in practice. While it is still possible to become an "acolyte" in
practice no one is ever made an acolyte except on the way to ordination
as presbyter or deacon. The ministry of "lector" has been replaced by that
of "catechist": which is arguably the same thing under a different name.
The greatest loss is, of course, that of subdeacon. This has impoverished
the Liturgy. It has also re-inforced the chasm that divides the laity from
the clergy. Before the abolition of the subdiaconate, at every celebration
of High Mass, at least one "lay person" (i.e. someone who had not received
sacramental ordination) was supposed to play a major formal role
in the liturgical action. Moreover, the role of the subdeacon is "to assist
the deacon", and as the role of the deacon is essentially to have a hands-on
practical (pastoral) involvement with the laity, one can begin to appreciate
that many key roles in parish life should really be played by subdeacons.
Roles such as "Parish Secretary", "Parish Treasurer" and "Chairman of the
Council", "Lay Missioner", "Outreach Secretary" etc. etc. should all be
graced by the dignity of the subdiaconate and benefit from the graces that
would flow from this sacramental. The practical loss of the ministry of
Acolyte is hardly less significant. In theory, all "altar servers" should
be acolytes: and their ministry be wider than just "helping Father say
Mass".

Of course, the vision implicit in my critique of the abolition of the
minor orders is unrealistic. The minor orders long ago fell into desuetude,
under the advance of presbyterianism. Moreover, those who were ordained
into them were treated as members of the clergy, not the laity, by canon
law. My vision here is more for what may have been the case in the distant
past and what certainly should be now and in the future: not for what always
has been observed.

The
major obstacle standing in the way of my vision for the Contemporary Church
is that of gender. It is still thought wrong to ordain women to minor orders,
even though this would not involve the sacrament. Hence, to make any use
of minor orders would be sexist! Men could be made Acolytes, but not women:
this would mean that lay women would be prevented from having an equal
role with lay men as "Ministers of Communion". Moreover, it is thought
that because those in minor orders were treated as clergy, and their commissionings
were seen as being permanent: even though there is no notion that the sacramental
involved imprinted any "indelible character on the soul", it would be wrong
to appoint people to minor orders on a temporary or easily revocable (i.e.
without it becoming a matter of "discipline") basis as might be more appropriate
in a lay setting.

In my understanding of the matter, whether it is possible or not to
ordain
a woman as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, it is certainly possible
to ordain her a subdeacon! After all, if it is possible for the Church
to create and destroy the office, She can certainly make of it whatever
She wishes: though for the exercise of this power to be legitimate it must
be charitable, equitable and not contradict or be seen to oppose orthodox
doctrine.

Role Reversal

As a first approximation, it is fair to say that it is generally thought
that there are only two roles in the Church:

that of priest, or religious
who:

commands respect; has authority; and who
does spiritual things,

and that of lay person, who:

commands no respect; has no authority and
who does secular things: and in particular breeds.

Now this picture is not attractive to either lay folk: who feel undervalued
by it, or the presbyterate: who feel isolated by it and from whom too much
is expected. The natural reaction is seen everywhere. Lay folk arrogate
to themselves aspects of the "priest": hence the enthusiasm with which
people volunteer to become of "lay ministers of communion", and presbyters
act like "ordinary blokes": hence the doffing of any form of clerical dress.

There is little desire on the part of the laity to take up the roles
in the Church that are their proper aspirations: that of implementing the
Kingdom of God in their own lives by being friends
to all they meet; and spreading the Gospel by their words and example.
These
are important and demanding roles. They require commitment; spiritual
maturity; wisdom; judgement; a firm grounding in theology and general leadership
skills. They cannot be fulfilled (as can the role of "Minister of Communion")
by acting out a pre-programmed external role. Equally, there is little
desire on the part of the laity to accept the responsibilities and authority
of the Apostolic Ministry, because they have no idea what this is:
the average Catholic priest spending much of his effort on being just like
the average lay person!

Collaborative Ministry

Almost everything that is presently done by the Catholic priesthood could
be done by suitably trained lay people. Of course, I except the sacramental
ministry of the priest, but this typically occupies less than one hour
of his time each weekday! In the UK, this seems like a radical thing to
say. In Africa, I suppose that it wouldn't be worth saying! Much of what
a typical Catholic priest spends his time doing is essentially worthless
(e.g. marriage preparation courses, chairing various committee meetings)
and much of the rest requires none of his theological and philosophical
training.

The only problem with allowing lay people (ideally commissioned/ordained
into the minor orders) to take on much of the load of worthwhile but non-priestly
work (and to initiate much work that is currently just not done, such as
parish visiting; door to door and street corner evangelism; ongoing theological
and spiritual formation for other lay people; pastoral support for those
in distress, financial or emotional......) is that "they can't be trusted".
Of course this is true! Any priest giving me a role in his parish would
have to expect fireworks. I would not be likely to just "do what Father
wants", in particular I'd be concerned
both to uphold orthodox belief
and to question conventional practices. Neither would be immediately popular.
Of course, Bishops have the same problem with their presbyters: that's
why presbyters take an oath to obey their Bishop. It is strange how in
secular life this isn't perceived as being a problem. I suppose this is
because an employer can fire an unruly, insubordinate or unproductive employee.
This option is not really open to a Bishop with a nuisance priest.

Authoritarianism

I
believe that a good deal of what is wrong with the Church at the present
time is due to an unrealistic and misguided desire to control things that
do not matter, and a neglect of any concern to control those things that
do! Moreover the means used to effect this control are generally inappropriate
and counter-productive. So, the response of the Church to the Modernists
was basically to simply condemn their views and in general to deal with
them by disciplinary means. This was the same response as was used against
Luther. The effect regarding Modernism was to send it underground. Its
contentions were not addressed: those that were justifiable were not accepted;
those that were arguable were not investigated; those that were absurd
were not answered. There was a climate of fear. The hierarchy thought that
the Faith was safeguarded.

Then Pope John XXIII called the Vatican
Council and All Hell broke loose. The many secretly modernist
theologians abroad in the Church were given a platform to speak from without
risking condemnation: they simply fed gullible and naive Bishops things
to say! Most Bishops were soon out of their depth. They were not familiar
with the niceties of Modernism, because it had been hid from their eyes
and ears by decades of suppression. They were accustomed to be administrators,
not preachers and defenders of the Gospel. Most were unable to distinguish
liberal nonsense from the authentic tradition. All they knew was
that they were in the middle of a Great Event and that it was their chance
to change the Church forever. In fact it was the chance of the liberal
theologians to impose their vision on an unsuspecting and unprepared hierarchy.
This because the role of teacher in the Church had been disvalued and persuasion
and debate entirely neglected as modes of the Church's life in favour of
juridical authoritarianism.

"The modern church is as you describe
it: clerical, authoritarian and liberal, with the result that contented
Catholics are few and far between. I had dinner at the home of a friend
last week. All of us there were .... complaining about the liberalization
of the church. To listen to us, one would imagine that liberal Catholics
should be very happy with the state of the church. But of course that is
not true. Liberals are just as frustrated, but for different reasons. It
is astonishing. The successors of the apostles have managed a near miracle:
they have alienated virtually everyone, while still patting themselves
on the back for reforming and renewing the church. You know, the Catholic
church really must be divine in origin. From a human point of view, no
institution this incompetent could have survived fortwo thousand years." [An
email correspondent 19th Feb 2003]

It was the legacy of overweening central control that enabled the modernists
who captured most of the Church's bureaucracy in the wake of Pope Paul
VIth's pontificate to impose their liturgical
will with an iron fist on the whole of the Western Church. If only a gentler
spirit had been abroad in the Church, they would not have been able to
do this. "Those that take the sword will die by the
sword,"[Mat 26:52] Our Lord warned
us long ago.

In the end, it wasn't the laity who proved untrustworthy, but the
Catholic Episcopate!

An
educated and informed laity

This was something close to the heart of one of my heroes, Cardinal Newman.
In the end, the hierarchy must

allow and encourage the laity to be better
educated and informed: so that they will be more reliable and

listen more to the laity: so that unrealistic theories of what it is to
be Christian can be falsified by the experience and Prophetic insight of
the laity as well as by theological definition by the hierarchy.

The alternative is to give lip service to Newman's dream (as is currently
done) while in practice doing everything possible to keep the laity as
a whole uneducated, ill-informed and generally incapable of either challenging
or co-operating with the hierarchy. Given the huge drop in vocations to
the Apostolic Ministry (as also the Religious Life), the hierarchy will
eventually have its hand forced, though I am sure that the first response
will be just to allow more lay folk to play at being "priests", just to
let them feel that they are doing something significant.

There is no end to what could be written on this topic, but I don't
think it worthwhile to add much more in terms of practical details, as
I have no expectation that any specific suggestions would be taken up.
What is lacking here, as throughout the whole of the Church's life is mutual
trust
and respect based on charity and a common faith. Catholics no longer
have much common ground and are more likely to despise and hate each other
than to feel sympathy and comradeship.

If the laity had been better informed and educated, they would never
have tolerated the many nonsenses that were imposed
upon them in the 1960's and 1970's. At the time, most knew that they didn't
like what was happening; but they were accustomed to simply "doing what
they were told" on the basis that "Father knows best" and that "the greatest
virtue is obedience" and were accustomed to believe that "to question the
hierarchy is to be a protestant". They had no formation or expectation
that they should play an active part in determining the character of the
life of the Church. If they had been given such a vision of their role,
history would have been very different. I am equally sure that much of
the pattern of Church life in the 1930's would have vanished long before
1960. Change would have been gradual, consensual and organic, in accordance
with authentic Tradition. Instead it was rapid, authoritarian, artificial
and foreign to the Tradition.

Priesthood and Sexuality

I am very much in favour of celibacy being upheld as a central feature
of the Apostolic Ministry. This for exactly the reason that St Paul gives:
namely that responsibility for a spouse or family is necessarily a distraction
from an absolute commitment to God and to the People of God. Nevertheless,
it is well known that there is no essential connection between priesthood
and celibacy. Moreover I know from experience that the support of a good
marriage can enable a pastor to minister better to their flock. Given that
celibacy and priesthood are not essentially connected (i.e. sex is not
a source of
impurity and it is not improper or degrading for a priest
to make physical love to their spouse) one must expect that some
people who do not have a vocation to be celibate do have a vocation to
the Apostolic Ministry. To deny them the opportunity to follow this vocation
is to deny the Church the graces that would flow from it. This is simply
stupid.

Celibacy has tended to be seen as wider ranging in its scope than a
mere renunciation of marriage and, by implication, all sexual intimacy.
There is a widespread notion that any form of close friendship is ruled
out too, and that the ideal celibate is someone with no family, friends
nor close acquaintance: a hermit living in the midst of society. This is
simply inhumane and cruel. It is not how Jesus lived, nor his Apostles,
nor some hermits! It is contrary to the teaching
of St Aelred. It is reasonable to assume that most of the Apostles
were married: St Peter certainly was, and St Paul for one had many close
friends: some of them female! It is quite obvious that many good priests
loose heart and become depressed and lonely: I suspect that some would
not come to such harm if they had the support of a family and/or a network
of close friends to fall back on.

I do not see why homosexuals, whether celibate or in a committed relationship,
should be treated in any way different from heterosexuals. It is not entirely
clear to me that marriage, as such, is an option for same gender couples
(though I have argued in favour of this position, elsewhere).
If it is, then it should be required of any non celibate homosexual wishing
to enter the Apostolic Ministry: if it is not, then a solemn partnership
commitment (along the lines envisaged in the Eastern Rites, as unearthed
by Prof. Boswell)
should be required.

The only difficulty here is how to encourage and favour celibacy while
not discouraging the evolution of a married priesthood. The Eastern Tradition
offers one possible model. In the typical Eastern Jurisdiction, it is possible
to become a priest (or deacon) if you are married: but only celibate clergy
can advance to senior office (i.e. higher than Parish Priest). This does
not strike me as satisfactory, as I would like to see the possibility of
some Bishops (and the occasional Pope) being married. I think that this
would give a roundedness and balance to the perspective of the hierarchy.
In an ideal world, some would choose celibacy of their own initiative,
because it was the vocation proper to them. Perhaps it would be enough
for the Church to steadfastly proclaim the excellence of celibacy, for
a suitable balance between a married and unmarried ministry to be attained?

Priesthood and Gender

It seems to me that this issue is extremely simple. Whereas I used to believe
strongly that it was impossible for a woman to be a priest, I now
realize that this is an objectively meaningless statement and so theologically
insupportable. St Paul was on the right lines when he proclaimed that "....
there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian,
Scyth'ian, slave, free man: but Christ is all, and in all" [Col
3:11] and that ".... in Christ Jesus you
are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized
into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are
all one in Christ Jesus" [Gal 3:26,28].
Note that the Apostle seems to say that "even females" are sons
of God! In the end, this and similar statements come down to the philosophical
point that all such distinctions are human constructs, of limited
practical validity and of no objective or spiritual significance.

This is less obviously true of gender than the other categories that
St Paul lists. After all everyone is either male or female at conception
and at birth; this is not a reality imposed upon them by society. The
only problem with this assertion is that in fact the opposite is true!
If
one is going to maintain that it is impossible for a woman to be
ordained to the Apostolic Ministry, then one must have a clear notion of
what a woman is. The following are possible answers:

Someone who has two X-chromosomes in (most
of) the cells of their body.

Someone who developed from an egg fertilized
by a sperm carrying an X-chromosome.

I am sure that there are many others. I do not mean to give offence. My
point is only that no matter what cocktail of attributes one adopts,
it is arbitrary. You will find individual human beings who confound
it! A significant number of hermaphrodites are born each year, and
some children who are to all appearances female are genetically male:

The most frequent condition leading to an XY female is called
Swyer syndrome. The opposite does indeed occur. The condition leading to
an XX male is called de la Chapelle syndrome. In previous centuries it
was impossible to check for de la Chapelle syndrome in the priesthood,
and even now the idea of checking would be an absurd expense. I see several
possible responses to this.

Special pleading, e.g. "The Holy Spirit would never have allowed an XX
male to be ordained."

Doubt that apostolic succession has been maintained.

Acceptance that XX genetics is no bar to holy orders.

Unfortunately, the first two options would not be
summarily rejected. I've heard some people dismiss any need, given modern
medical technology, to have a policy in case of a long-term comatose pope
because "the Holy Spirit would never allow that." Similarly, I've heard
other people express doubt that apostolic succession has been maintained
because they believed gay men could not be validly ordained. [A
lay correspondent (August 2008)]

Both conditions occur with far more frequency
than the Church would like to admit. This (whether XX male or XY female)
has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality!
[A professor of biology (August 2008)]

Of course, if the "spiritual soul" is engendered, then all other issues
are irrelevant. However, it would then be impossible to maintain the discipline
of not ordaining women in practice, as one would have no means of determining
if a particular person had a male or female "spiritual soul": except
by resorting to some cocktail of physiological and psychological attributes!
Moreover, I do not personally believe that "spiritual souls" are engendered.
Jesus said: ".... you know neither the scriptures
nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are
given in marriage, but are like angels
in heaven"
[Mat 22:29,30].

Hence it seems to me that no matter how much one might wish to
exclude "women" from the Apostolic Ministry, it is simply nonsense
to make any attempt to do so. In the past, when it was taken for granted
that every person was male or female and the few awkward cases were conveniently
ignored; such a policy could be maintained with a veneer of rationality.
This is simply no longer possible, given the advance of scientific knowledge.
It is fairly clear that the original basis for the exclusion of females
from the Apostolic Ministry was that women were imperfectly formed men
and to be excluded from priesthood by extension of the principle that:
"He
whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter
the assembly" [Deut 23:1].

Now that it is clear that "gender" is not a clear-cut category, any
more than is any other personal characteristic (e.g. sexual orientation;
handedness; skin colour) the notion that women cannot be ordained is insupportable.
Through Isaiah, God proclaims:

"To the eunuchs
who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast
my covenant .... these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make
them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of
prayer for all peoples"[Is 56:4,5,7].

In the book of Wisdom it is further written:

"Blessed also is the eunuch whose hands
have done no lawless deed... for special favour will be shown him... and
a place of great delight in the temple of the Lord" [Ws
3:14].

Pope John-Paul II can insist
as much as he wishes that every Catholic must believe that it is impossible
for a woman to enter the Apostolic Ministry: the statement has no objective
meaning and therefore simply cannot be given a truth value. My analysis
of the official teaching on women's ordination is given as an Appendix.
Some further arguments regarding the ordination of women are given
elsewhere.

Here are some comments (which I heartily endorse) of a friend of mine,
who is a Catholic priest:

"I find the arguments against ordaining
women to be weak: they are not my personal arguments, but those proffered
by the Teaching Authority of the Church, which perhaps really has no other
arguments than: 'it has always been so, and albeit for mysterious reasons
unknown to us, it must remain so until God Himself reveals otherwise.'

The biological sex argument is no longer
convincing to an ever increasing number of people, just as it is not convincing
to me as an argument against same-sex
relationships. Perhaps God is now calling women to the priesthood,
but the Church is not listening to His voice and thus unable to confirm
that call? That is possible. However that may be, it will have to be the
Church hierarchy to make that
decision, as ordination is an act of the whole Catholic church, and
not the act of a single bishop, or of a single sect.

It is true that our
Blessed Mother was not ordained to the priesthood. Nevertheless, She
conceived and bore God in her womb and brought Him up for thirty years,
and is with Him now as Queen
of Heaven! She was and is much, much more than an ordained priest,
and it would have been redundant to call Her to be also an Apostle and
priest. Mary gave us Christ as flesh
from her own flesh - and thus made the invisible God visible for us
as one of us; the priest gives us Christ in the flesh, too, however not
visible as one of us, but in the outward form of the host. So Mary's intercessory
role in bringing us Christ is primary and superior to that of the ordained
priest, and her not having been ordained is not a good argument against
ordaining women now.

Perhaps a future council will be allowed
the freedom to discuss this and other issues, such as obligatory celibacy
for priests of the Roman rite, birth control
and homosexual relationships.

I am convinced of one thing: as long
as the present confusion reigns amongst Catholics as to how we should worship
and what we must believe, the Church Hierarchy will not dare to make any
more changes at all, such as ordaining women, making celibacy optional,
and blessing same-sex relationships - as any changes now would worsen an
already precarious situation. Now is simply not the right moment. Our basic
foundations (the Mass, sacraments and orthodox faith) must first be in
proper order again before we can go about making needed changes in canon
law, moral theology and pastoral care. After the disaster
of Vatican II, any change at all is considered suspicious at best and
heretical at worst by the faithful.

A restoration is needed so that we can
start all over again from the point at which the Second Vatican Council
ended. And this time hopefully we shall get it right, keep the foundations
of our faith and worship unchanged, and dare to change what can and must.
Then perhaps we shall have women priests celebrating the Traditional Mass
and preaching the orthodox catholic faith, alongside married and celibate
gay and straight male priests, who will be free to bless same-sex unions
as well as heterosexual marriages! I hope and pray that this will happen
in my lifetime."

The Apostolic Succession

I wish to now suggest that the standard view of Apostolic Succession taken
for granted in conservative Catholic circles is not as obviously true as
might be thought. To see this, consider the hypothetical situation in which
some global disaster occurred after which no validly ordained person remained
alive. The Church (which would therefore only consist of laity) would have
to decide whether to accept the situation as it was and "get along" with
only the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony (which is possible) and without
any hierarchical governance (which is not possible: some unApostollic system
of lay management would inevitably evolve); or else to resurrect the Apostolic
Ministry.

How could it do the latter, you may ask? Easily, I respond. As pointed
out by the ARCIC, the Apostolic Succession
is not just a matter of the "laying on of hands" (though this is indispensable
and of inalienable significance in normal circumstances), but more of the
continuance of Sacred Tradition in the life of the Christian Community.
In normal circumstances the passing on of the Faith within the social interaction
of the People of God and the passing on of the authority to govern the
People of God by laying on of hands go together as mutually reinforcing
strands of authenticity.

However, according to Ott, "the charismatically
gifted 'Prophets' of the Primative Church also celebrated the eucharist.
It does not contradict the Tridentine dogma to assume that they possessed
the sacerdotal power on the ground of an immediate divine vocation just
as the Apostles did." [Ott IV 3.2 III
2] In exceptional circumstances, therefore, I have no doubt
that the Church Community has within it a plenitude of authority: by virtue
of the indwelling of Holy Spirit, by grace of Baptism and Confirmation.
Hence, just as the Apostle Paul gained his commission "....
as to one untimely born .... I am the least of the apostles"[1Cor
15:8,9] direct from Jesus; so the Church, even shorn of its hierarchy
could meet in solemn (lay) Oecumenical Council; invoke Holy Spirit and
appoint new Bishops to continue the Apostolic Ministry.

If I am right about this extreme possibility, then in other emergency
situations of lesser gravity; similar actions might be justified.
The principle of "Economy" or "the Church supplies the jurisdiction" might
apply. Hence, it is possible that some separated
Christian Communities (even those which at some point purposefully
repudiated the Apostolic Ministry) might in objective fact have valid orders.
Of course, this would only become clear (subjectively) once an Oecumenical
Council declared that they did have, after due investigation of the case.
The basis on which such a judgement could be founded would be that the
schism and repudiation was fundamentally a mistake and misunderstanding
rather than a wilful apostasy: that those who followed the schism were
certainly not at fault, and in as far as they willed "to do what the Church
does", then God would honour that intent. Of course, the contrary arguments
that:

without objective outward form no sacrament means anything;

even if the lost Apostolic Succession could be supplied by Oecumenical
action of the Church; Catholicity can not in any sense be said to be represented
by a small group of (even well-meaning) formal dissidents; and

in any case, no set of such dissidents has ever explicitly set out
to regularize a deficiency in their orders by such an invocation of Holy
Spirit.

"Back in November 1995, the issue of
whether Catholic women may be ordained into the priesthood rocketed from
an interesting theological and practical issue to an issue which has the
potential of shaking the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church. On October
31st, 1995 a letter was promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith which attempted to elevate the whole issue of Women's Ordination
from one of policy and theological speculation to a matter of definition
of Dogma and obedience. This attempt, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to
define new dogma was met with theological objection and ultimately did
not succeed. Its effect however went far beyond the question of ordaining
women to the Catholic priesthood and the ripples generated by the Cardinal's
attempt still may be felt within our Church today.

At the time that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
was first issued, there was theological speculation by theologians that
the Holy Father's ban was in the form of an infallible statement. The
consensus of most theologians and indeed the official Vatican newspaper
was that the ban itself was not promulgated by the Pope as an infallible
statement but rather as a most serious but ordinary magisterial document."
[San
Francisco Bay Chronicle]

Ratzinger also wrote an explanatory letter:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith issued a statement accompanying its Responsum ad Dubium which
explicitly denied that the pope had been exercising his infallible extraordinary
magisterium in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (28/10/95). It described Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis as a teaching act of the pope that was 'not itself infallible',
and this position was reiterated in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore
Romano (19/11/95)." [San
Francisco Bay Chronicle]

And here is the relevant extract:

"In response to this precise act of the
Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic
Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to
the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official
Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent,
that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church.
In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives
from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word
of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church,
it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium
(cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs
to the deposit of the faith of the Church."

"It should be emphasized that
the
definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not
arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In
the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances,
has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression
once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est,
utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens."

"In this case, an act of the ordinary
Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility
of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church." [Cardinal
Ratzinger: October 28, 1995]

Ratzinger is (incoherently) arguing, in accordance with the position that
he later filled
out when the motoproprio "Ad
Tuandum" was issued that whenever the Pope (or indeed he, himself:
acting for the Pope!) remarks that some doctrine has always and
everywhere been taught by the whole body of the Bishops and is therefore
infallible, that every Catholic has to agree with this opinion:
even though this opinion isn't and cannot be of itself infallible!

This is entirely contrary to Tradition, and I will have no part in it.
If the Pope wishes to define something as dogma, then he has a perfectly
plain
path to follow. If he doesn't follow that path - for whatever reason
- then he won't achieve the goal that he has set his sights on. Simply
saying that he has achieved this goal when he hasn't doesn't change objective
reality.

I acknowledge that other traditionalists
would view the matter differently. They have to explain how they deal with
other doctrines that have been "defined" to a similar degree of credibility
and subsequently been changed. Personally, I have no wish to engage in
such double think. Dealing with the infallible definition of "Unum
Sanctum" is difficult enough for me!

Appendix
II: The Emasculation of the Priesthood

by Father James McLucas - Spring 1998

This article was brought to my attention by
a
priest friend. My comments are insinuated
within the text in purple. My friend's reactions
are gathered together at the end in green.

Cardinal Ratzinger recently caused a stir among Catholics by questioning
the legitimacy of the wholesale restructuring of the Roman Rite following
the Second Vatican Council. A return salvo was not long in coming. Archbishop
Rembert Weakland, in a cover story that appeared in the prestigious Jesuit
journal America, attacked the whole idea of the indult traditional Mass
that is growing steadily throughout the Church. Despite the request of
the Holy Father to the bishops of the world to be "generous" in their implementation
of the Latin Mass indult, there is massive resistance in the overwhelming
majority of the episcopal conferences throughout the world. Catholics who
view tradition as their rightful heritage are often mystified as to the
reason for such opposition to the ancient Mass.

The most vociferous enemies of traditional Mass, however, have never
been reticent about stating the reasons for their reaction. They have made
it clear that what is at stake is the liturgical and ecclesiastical revolution
of the post-Vatican II era. The late Cardinal Giovanni Benelli said it
best. When asked if the traditional Mass would ever return (this was long
before the indult was granted by Pope John Paul II), he answered negatively
in rather emphatic tones. The reason: the traditional Mass represented
an ecclesiology at variance with the one articulated at Vatican II. That
is the heart of the matter. A steadily increasing number of Catholics have
arrived at the conclusion that the Church is in the midst of a crisis
that will only worsen unless Rome is willing to examine the possibility
that for the past thirty years there has been a consistent violation of
the norm which governs Catholic tradition: authentic reform must be
grounded in organic development. On a wide range of issues, there are growing
questions as to whether or not this ecclesiological fundamental has been
respected (Cardinal Ratzinger's recent observations about the new Mass
causing "extremely serious damage" are an example). If a rite of fifteen
hundred years had to be scrapped to accommodate a Vatican II ecclesiology,
sufficient prima facie evidence exists to question whether or not authentic
development occurred.

[I agree emphatically with all the above.]

One aspect of the current crisis has escaped scrutiny: the present status
of the celibate priesthood following the expansive absorption of many sacred
functions by the laity that were formerly reserved to the ordained. Endangering
priestly celibacy because it is inherently hostile to a healthy masculinity,
this structural revolution evokes an image of a square peg being pounded
into a round hole. [I take it that the author's meaning
is that the "structural revolution is hostile to a healthy masculinity".
I think this is misguided, and we will see where this error leads]The
post-Conciliar Church is of a different shape from that which housed the
traditional theology of the priesthood, and a mandatory celibate priesthood
simply doesn't fit. Sadly, all the pieces are in place for the introduction
of "optional celibacy" into the Western Rite. [Something
that, in principle, I would welcome.]

The preparation for optional celibacy began with the introduction of
the permanent diaconate following the Second Vatican
Council. The Church was informed by Pope Paul VI that this was nothing
more than the restoration of a classic practice. He remained silent, however,
about the fact that there had never been a Holy "Order" [why
the quotes?] that was non-celibate since the mandating of celibacy
in the Western Church. [1] [Except, of course, throughout
the entire Eastern Church!]

The creation of this married rung [The notion
that the diaconate is any kind of a rung of some ladder that is to be climbed
is seriously malformed.] of Holy Order, followed by many Protestant
minister converts being admitted to the priesthood, [2] has broken down
resistance to mandatory celibacy. The drift towards optional celibacy was
not limited to incremental developments like the diaconate and the ordination
of married Protestant converts. They are simply the more obvious. The catalyst
that oriented the Latin Church towards the married priesthood was the introduction
of the concept of "collaborative lay ministry." This began with the elimination
of "minor orders" by Pope Paul, and the tearing away of the substitutions,
the "ministries" of lector and acolyte, from an exclusive orientation towards
the ordained priesthood. [Which was, in itself quite
correct. The minor orders were originally not oriented
"towards the ordained priesthood" The author shows himself to be
woefully misinformed.] Originally, the legislation limited
these ministries to lay men [for no good reason].
The bishops of the United States, with Rome's approval, quickly demonstrated
their second thoughts about that limitation by allowing lay women to perform
these functions. They simply declared that, while only lay men could be
admitted to these ministries, [3] women could and would be called upon
for the special liturgical services of Reader and Extraordinary Minister
of tile Eucharist. Once that hurdle was cleared, it was only a relatively
small step to the erection of full-time lay "pastoral administrators" that
currently "lead" anywhere between 10 to 15 percent of the priestless parishes
in the United States.
[This is a serious abuse.]

Curiously, in 1995 the Vatican declared that no lay person who administered
a priestless parish could have the word "pastoral" attached to his title.
[4] The next crucial stride towards optional celibacy was the introduction
of "the priestless Communion service," which was initiated, one would guess,
to provide a degree of liturgical solemnity for those lay persons charged
with the pastoral care of priestless parishes. [This
is a serious abuse.] It always amazed me that Catholics who have
been in the pews for fifty years label this liturgical hybrid with such
local characterizations as "Sister Ruth's Mass." This would seem to indicate
that, to many Catholics in the pew, the Novus Ordo Mass is visually not
all that different in essentials from the priestless Communion service.
(If that is the case, one might say that the Novus Ordo itself prepared
vast numbers of Catholics for the lay-presider Communion rite.) [I
regret to say that I am sure that this is an accurate judgement]

Thus far, what I have attempted to describe is the elimination of the
relationship between function and ontology. Those ordained to the priesthood
have not lost their traditional "roles." The issue is, rather, that the
non-ordained have assumed many of the functions that have been reserved
to the priesthood since the Church emerged from the catacombs (and probably
before). Sacramental doctrine explicitly reserves to priests only the offering
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the absolution of sin. However, to state
that this defines all that is unique about their ordination mandate is
to sponsor a doctrinal minimalism in regard to the sacramental priesthood
that parallels what is being done to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. [I
strongly concur. The core of the presbyterial ministry is leadership and
authority: to act in Persona Christi, as an Icon of Christ. It is from
this sacramental core reality that the presbyterate's sacramental functions
as Eucharistic President and Juridical Reconciliator arise.] The
promoters of a Eucharistic minimalism have been largely successful in their
endeavour to confine the Eucharist to the act of consumption at Holy Communion.
Any expansion of Eucharistic devotion such as Benediction, the reservation
of the Blessed Sacrament within the sanctuary or Corpus Christi processions
has been thwarted in large parts of the Western Church. The consequent
loss of devotion to the Eucharist and a creeping heterodoxy among the faithful
concerning Eucharistic doctrine have been well documented.[I
strongly concur]

In a parallel manner (and given the innate relationship between Eucharist
and priesthood, not surprisingly) the Vatican and the bishops are undermining
the priestly identity, primarily by altering his unique relationship with
the Eucharist through the introduction of Communion in the hand, lay ministers
of the Eucharist, and lay presiders of Communion services.[I
strongly concur] Lay pastoral administrators and lay pastoral associates
[The
rights and wrongs of this must depend crucially on the roles
undertaken by people with these titles!], as well as the lay administration
of sacramentals (i.e., prayer and liturgical action at the blessing of
throats and distribution of ashes), and lay presiding at funeral and wedding
liturgies are examples of the further usurpation of tasks from within the
sacred environment that was, until thirty years ago, the distinctive domain
of ordained celibate priests in the Latin Rite. [These
are serious abuses.]

The Second Vatican Council repeated the doctrine that the ministerial
priesthood differs in essence and not merely in degree from the priesthood
of the faithful. [I strongly concur, but would add
that the latter is he context of the former and the reason for its existence.]
The
reality of that doctrine had always been made incarnate through the unique
sacramental and pastoral role of the priest. But it was never enough simply
to proclaim this doctrine. The priest as alter Christus was made perceptible
(to himself as well as to others) through a visible role that expressed
a clear and unambiguous ecclesial "division of labour," which was essential
to the personal appropriation of his supernatural identity.
[I
strongly concur, but would qualify this by saying that in the recent past
- at least - the division of labour has been hugely lop-sided.]

I will argue that the assumption of sacred functions by the laity, reserved
to the ordained for at least fifteen hundred years, is poisoning the priesthood.
[I
strongly concur.]
The contention proceeds from a simple premise:
if the priesthood is reserved to men, as has been taught by the Church,
[this
is a premise that I have great difficulty with and so must part company
with the author here, which is a shame because I agree with his conclusions
and think that they are readily established on less contentious grounds]
then what does harm to the masculine nature of the ordained weakens the
priesthood itself.

Frank Sheed, the great apologist of the Catholic Evidence Guild, was
always scornful of an entity he referred to as the "man-eating Thomist."
He was referring to those philosophers supposedly devoted to St. Thomas
Aquinas who narrowly focused on his insights into the Divine but who were
seldom intrigued by the formidable psychological acumen of the Angelic
Doctor. Saint Thomas' eloquence in regard to human emotions is extraordinary.
He indicates that the emotions are often the first to know, in a non-conceptual
form, that which is right and true. While St. Thomas warns that the intellect
must always confirm the intuitive insights of the emotions, he is equally
concerned about the consequences of ignoring the input of the emotions.
[I
strongly concur.]

Catholics resisting the post-Conciliar revolution found their emotions
screaming at every new break with tradition. They were reflexively obedient,
however, to the decisions of Holy Mother Church. Yet for millions of Catholics,
the pain has compounded; the emotions have not ceased to groan. While they
have been told by those in authority that their pain is contrived, the
conflict between their intellect and emotions is approaching critical mass.
Not a few Catholics have begun to re-examine the raw data provided by their
emotions through the filter of an intellectual reappraisal of the past
thirty years of Church history.

Likewise, many priests with whom I've conversed have expressed an innate
sense that something is wrong with the Vatican sponsored Usurpation of
their shepherding roles by the laity. Whenever attempts are made to articulate
reasons for the discomfort, the conversation is arrested when someone inevitably
drifts into the mantra, "Well, we're talking about discipline here; there
is nothing in Church doctrine that would disallow this." So, the silent
conclusion was equally certain: there must be something wrong with the
priest's unease with the developing "collaborative" structure. "I must
be too conservative," "I must be too rigid," "I must be too selfish in
not wanting to share my pastoral role," were often the unspoken feelings
and yet the negative visceral emotions remained and often intensified.
[I
think there is validity mixed with invalidity in this evidence.]

The mistake was the failure to take into account the obvious possibility
that the unique sacramental/pastoral role of the priest is not a mere time
bound whim of the Church, but is intrinsic to the nature of the priesthood,
particularly a celibate one. From the time that priestly celibacy came
to be understood [this should be "imposed"]
as the norm [in the Western Church only],
the unique administration of the sacred and, in particular, the priest
as sole steward of the Eucharist [what has happened
to the deacon here?], were supernatural responsibilities that grounded
the celibate's commitment. [5] The man who has sacrificed wife and family
is discovering that the structure that guarded his self-identity as a spiritual
spouse and father is in the process of being dismantled. The effects are
simultaneously subtle and pronounced.

A constitutive part of masculinity [but not femininity?]
is the desire for unique intimacy [This is otherwise
known as the deadly sin of jealousy]. Much has been written in the
past three decades about appropriate intimacy for the priest. Most of the
literature focuses upon the nature of the human relationships that dot
the landscape of a priest's life. In the 1970s a best seller among priests
and religious was a work entitled, The Sexual Celibate. It suffered from
a variety of weaknesses, but it articulated a reality worth repeating:
namely, the distinction between the sexual and the sensually sexual within
each human person. The forfeiture of the sensually sexual does not mutate
the human being into an asexual creature. The need for a unique physical
intimacy [it is truly sad that it is presumed that
all physical intimacy is sexual in character: what about the hug of close
friends or the intimacy of parent and child?] with another is constitutive
of permanent monogamous relationships ordained by the Creator, yet it is
precisely that type of intimacy with another human being that the celibate
sacrifices. The celibate priest, however, was offered through his office
an incomparable and unparalleled intimacy: he alone could touch God. [This
is a silly analogy. While I am enthusiastic about the idea that only those
in Apostolic Orders should manipulate the Blessed Sacrament and (routinely?)
touch Eucharistic vessels, I have no difficulty with the ancient practice
of the laity reverently receiving communion in their hands. The fact that
the Blessed Sacrament is eaten is indefinitely more intimate than any amount
of manipulation!]

The liturgical legislation of the post-Conciliar era has eliminated
the Eucharistic exclusivity that marked the office of the priest. The celibate
priest no longer possesses the unique corporeal relationship with God.
He is not denied the relationship, but others have access to it. Consider
a parallel situation: i.e., within the Sacrament of Matrimony. The possession
of an exclusive bodily prerogative with one's spouse is primary; in fact
there exists no greater convergence between the Divine Law and the instincts
of even fallen human nature than on this point. Violate this pact, and
one risks murderous rage. [This is a terrible indictment
of the author's mentality! Monogamy on this basis is little more than a
pandering to the deadly sin of jealousy!]

If a celibate priest, however, reacts with even the slightest resentment
towards the loss of what was his corporeal exclusivity within his Sacrament
of Holy Orders, he is considered a candidate for psychological evaluation.
[6] The fact is that many priests [and lay folk too!]
do have an instinctive reaction against the presence of the non-consecrated
hand touching the Body of God. A non-consecrated hand in the tabernacle,
or reaching for the Sacrament at the reception of Holy Communion, violates
an intimacy that was, before the engineering of liturgical "roles," exclusively
the priest's. [7] [But it wasn't! On this basis the
laity should be denied holy communion except - perhaps - in exceptional
circumstances: Oh! gulp!! That used to be the case not so long ago! Perhaps
we should revert to that abusive practice!] A dynamic equivalent
to what would fuel the emotions of a husband who realizes another has shared
the exclusive intimacy with the one to whom he has permanently committed
himself, is present within priests. [8] The sense of alienation is
more intense for the traditional celibate priest because he is aware that
his spouse, the Church [This is a confused argument.
First the priest's spouse is Christ, now it is the Church!], has
arranged and promoted the nonexclusivity.
[This is
terrible! Jesus is utterly wanton and promiscuous. He aspires to
be intimate at the level of the "union of souls" with everyone that is
ever to be born. Each lover of Christ has to come to terns with the fact
that His love is not at all exclusive, but totally inclusive. Our
Lord is the true Pontifex Maximus: the builder of bridges among all folk
of goodwill!]

The change in Church practice that was the gateway to all of the above
was Communion in the hand. Paul VI, in the very document that permitted
the radical departure from tradition [Or overdue
return to tradition, depending on one's point of view!], appealed
to the faithful to keep the original practice [which
was certainly not the original practice!] of receiving the
Eucharist on the tongue. His entreaty revolved around one main point: that
it was an ancient and venerable practice; it was tradition. [This
is simply true. It may well be that the later practice is better, but "communion
in the hand" is the ancient and original Apostolic practice, in the West
at least.] Whenever tradition, however, is made to be the major
defence of any ecclesial practice, it becomes incumbent upon legitimate
authority to articulate the reason for the tradition. Without such an effort,
the rationale is reduced to a strategy which embraces a nominalist framework.
[This
may or may not be true. Some proposition may be consonant with the Deposit
of Faith, and yet the Magisterium not yet be able to articulate clearly
how and why this is so. Similarly, some practice may in fact be valuable
in communicating or supporting some aspect of Orthodoxy and yet the Church
find it difficult to say exactly how or why. We do not presently have all
the answers, but see through a glass dimly!] A practice is of tradition
because it may well be the best (and perhaps even the only) vehicle for
conveying an aspect or aspects of the Faith in ways that may not be readily
apparent. [Exactly so!]

From the liturgical revolution to the deliberate role revision among
priests and laity that was essential to its success, we have operated on
a daily basis within a Church that has forgotten that tradition is tradition
for a reason. [I strongly concur.] The suggestion
is being raised [I presume the author means by himself,
here in this article] that within the priest there exists a sublime
alignment of the supernatural masculine [What in
God's good earth might this be?] and the natural masculine which
protects and articulates [articulates?] his
gender integrity [What in God's good earth might
this be?]. Tradition safeguards [how?]
these divine and human spheres. This concept never had to be analysed because
the traditions which shielded the priesthood from plagues of spiritual
neurosis had never been subjected to tampering. [This
comment is fine. As I have previously said: Some proposition may be consonant
with the Deposit of Faith, and yet the Magisterium not yet be able to articulate
clearly how and why this is so. Similarly, some practice may in fact be
valuable in communicating or supporting some aspect of Orthodoxy and yet
the Church find it difficult to say exactly how or why.] Nor had
there been a need to reflect upon those visible components required to
integrate the supernatural vocation of celibacy with the masculine role.
[It must be held closely in attention that celibacy is in no way constitutive
of priesthood, and that a vocation to one does not necessity involve a
vocation to the other. This simple and indisputable fact is being lost
sight of here.]

Let us look at a specific development that intrinsically violates the
cohesiveness of the masculine within the celibate priest. A "presider"
at a priestless Communion service sits in the priest's chair, proclaims
the Gospel, preaches a homily (supposedly composed by a priest or deacon
["preaching"
a homily written by someone else is a recipe for disaster!], though
seldom is this the case), goes to the tabernacle, prays at the altar of
sacrifice and distributes the Eucharist. This non-sacerdotal anomaly talks
like a priest, acts like a priest, appropriates the sanctuary which for
at least a millennium and a half had been the sacred domain of the priest
[and
deacon and subdeacon and lay servers] and clothes him or herself
in priestly vesture. [9] All of this is incompatible with the celibate
[Why
is this word introduced here? It is irrelevant to the argument.]
priest's identification with fatherhood (in his case, a spiritual one).
It represents a radical departure from century upon century of Church history
and experience,
[This is an understatement. It represents
a travesty of Catholic Worship and verges on the blasphemous!] and
offers liturgical approbation to the concept of a "Fatherless" parish society.

I use the phrase "Fatherless" society deliberately because of the direct
parallels within the present secular order. The fatherless family is a
late twentieth-century invention, as is the Fatherless parish. [We
should bear in mind that Our Blessed Lord specifically enjoined his followers
to call no-one "father"!] There have always been parishes that have
had to go weeks suffering the absence of a priest as he makes his appointed
circuit among his far-flung flock. Yet the idea that someone could replace
him in almost all of his pastoral tasks has no pedigree. [I
strongly concur.] Social scientific data do not deny that in the
secular sphere other adult substitutes can do what a father does, but there
are increasing questions as to whether they should. The analysis points
to adverse effects upon both father and family. Anthropological research
suggests that the key to responsible fatherhood lies in a condition known
as "the desire for paternal certainty." [10] In the secular culture, this
means that a key motivation for the male to accept the responsibilities
of fatherhood is the sure knowledge that the child is his own. [11] [Obviously,
from the "selfish gene" point of view. Once more, this is very sad as it
is inimical to the idea of adoption or fostering of non-genetic children
or a positive attitude towards step-children. As a "gay Catholic platonist
teacher" I am more interested in children of my mind and of my soul than
children of my loins!] Similarly, what will animate the celibate
male to accept and embrace his commitment to be a spiritual father is the
sure knowledge that there are no rivals to his spiritual paternity. [This
is an appalling view of Catholic ministry. St Paul tells of his contentment
that others reap where he first sowed. Such a lack of concern for ownership
or particular spiritual parenthood is characteristic of Gospel values,
for all parenthood - certainly spiritual parenthood - is God's and we can
only participate in it to very limited extent. Certainly, wholesome parenting
is all about letting go! Incidentally, the total lack of scriptural reference
in this article should give grave cause for concern and this should be
compounded by the similar lack of patristic reference!]

Manufacturing positions that substitute for his pastoral care contradicts
the very notion of paternal certainty. The protection of priestly identity
through a structure which visibly reinforces key components of his masculine
nature is a necessity, not an option.
[This presumes
that priests have to be male!] That means, besides respecting his
unique "sacred space" within the sanctuary, there must be the reservation
of all sacramental and liturgical functions (Eucharistic stewardship in
particular) to his hands and his hands alone. [This
explicitly denies the deacon any liturgical role!] These external
functions provide and manifest the constant and conscious self-reference
point of the priest as alter Christus and spiritual father. These external
responsibilities, reserved singularly to the priest, interiorly assist
his masculine nature to integrate the purpose of his celibate commitment
and motivate him to acquire the single heartedness that is the priest's
only path to holiness. [I fail to see how any of
this is connected to masculinity, any more than gold brocade chasubles
covered in pretty floral patterns, and embroidered lace cottas!]

The post-Conciliar priest of the contemporary Church (continuing a trend
that began long before Vatican II in the United States) has become a resident
CEO and CFO of a parish plant. He oversees countless committees that add
layers of bureaucracy and which - paradoxically - place a barrier between
the priest and his people.
[This is a serious abuse.]
Enjoying
the perquisites of the CEO that have nothing to do with his spiritual identity,
he begins to delegate the more burdensome and distasteful pastoral duties
in hospitals, nursing homes and the houses of shut-ins; he avoids being
available for the distribution of Holy Communion outside of his own
Masses; baptisms and weddings are merrily passed off to deacons, as well
as marriage preparations; convert instruction is transferred to the RCIA
committee [These are, generally speaking, serious
abuses.] He'll appropriate the vocabulary of those who hold legitimate
authority in the Church: "This is collaborative ministry!" No, it is not.
This is masculine pathology, the abdication of fatherhood. [Actually,
it is sheer laziness!] At the same time, this behaviour is understandable
within the context of the role reversal paradigm that infects all of Western
culture.

Social science analysis indicates that the propensity described in the
above paragraph is typical of men. Psychological and social patterns confirm
that the role of "nurturer" often is not a comfortable fit for the male.
Anthropological evidence indicates that fatherhood is very much a learned
experience. In her work Male and Female: The Study of the Sexes in a Changing
World, Margaret Mead writes (all emphases are mine), "the human family
depends upon social inventions that will make each generation of males
want to nurture women and children" (206). Indeed, "every known human society
rests firmly on the learned nurturing behaviour of men" (195). Mead observes
that in every known society, each new generation of young males learn the
appropriate nurturing behaviour and superimpose upon their biologically
given maleness this learned parental role" (198). In other words, the male
[father]
must learn fatherhood and that learning must be buttressed by distinct
proprietary functions protected throughout the social fabric.

Given this information, it is not surprising that the man ordained to
the priesthood, finding that the traditional pastoral tasks of spiritual
fatherhood are being diverted to others for a variety of ideological and
so-called "practical" reasons, begins to substitute the nurturing role
of a spiritual father with one more conducive to the boardroom atmosphere
of a company officer, permitting more secular competitive and aggressive
instincts to emerge. [12] In fact, he will search for excuses to promote
this exchange of roles, especially when Church authority is encouraging
him to do it. Again, to understand fully this pathology one needs to review
developments that are taking place within the secular culture.
[This
all sounds like an argument for an exclusively female - or possibly gay
- priesthood!]

There is an increasing amount of information suggesting that men are
being marginalized by the emerging social structure in contemporary Western
society. [13] Women, due to their physical ability to bear children and
the concomitant endowment and desire to nurture them, have a significant
and irreplaceable role through the design of nature. Men, on the other
hand, are not as comfortable with themselves. Unlike women, who possess
a clarity of role due to their inherent maternal qualities, men do not
have a "built in" social niche that is effected through biology. [This
is an appalling argument! I for one have no need of a social niche that
is effected through biology! I am a human being, created in God's image.
I am a friend and neighbour to others that I meet. I am a physicist, intrigued
by the wonders of God's natural creation. I am a philosopher, in love with
truth and beauty in all its forms. I am many things and have many roles
to play. I have no need to be a biological father. I find that it is easy
to play a nurturing role in my occupation as a teacher/lecturer - but perhaps
that is because I am gay and so more empathic than most more properly masculine
heterosexual males, please excuse the cynicism here, but this fellow is
making me angry!]

The man possesses a subtle, intuitive sense that once a child has been
conceived his presence is not strictly required [Only
if he sees his fulfilment in heterogender marriage and the purpose of marriage
as the procreation of children: Oh dear, this is the conventional Conservative
Catholic take on these issues too!]. Modern society encourages this
thinking and rewards it. The abandonment of the family by thousands of
fathers has, in fact, provided verification that women, when forced by
circumstances, can do it all [Except for -at present
- conceiving the child. As can fathers. Except for - at present - bearing
the child!]. The psychological and emotional [but
most especially, the financial] cost is, of course, enormous upon
both mother and child. Yet, mothers and children in countless cases are
surviving, even if not thriving, [and some thriving]
without benefit of the masculine presence [or money].

Therefore, the man's instinct concerning the strict necessity of his
role is not incorrect [Rubbish! The role of the male
in society, if the male requires a gender specific role, is clear].
From primitive history men have had to appropriate a role that parallels
the indispensability of women: that of provider and protector [Quite.
The typical female is disinclined towards some worthwhile activities e.g.
physics (though I have never understood why and have known some notable
exceptions) whereas the typical male finds these particularly interesting,
and vice versa. Only if the family and procreation are taken to be the
central and constitutive realities of society do the conclusions of this
author follow. In any case, why should a person take their gender as so
definitive of their self identity?] With the increasing economic
independence of women, the necessity of this role is being challenged and
men are generally responding in two ways: they either (1) promote the diminution
of their necessity because it allows them to engage in the selfish side
of their masculinity (all play and no work in regard to relationships with
women) [Plato teaches in "The
Laws" that the ideal life of virtue and justice entirely consists of
play, because this pleases (the) God(s)] and/or (2) experience
a distinct diminution of self-confidence that manifests itself in behaviour
that further alienates: promiscuity, impotence, homosexuality [Oh
dear, here we have it!] or other sexual aberrations, the abandonment
of children, etc. [The idea that it is a lack of
self-confidence that has made me (or anyone else, such as Alexander the
Great) gay is laughable!] As pastoral and sacramental care are increasingly
becoming independent of the priest, this secular pathology is finding all
too familiar parallels among Catholic priests.

The post-Conciliar ecclesial structure has fostered priestly dysfunction,
resulting in a destructive pattern of behaviour that is becoming too evident.
[14] The loss of the priest's unique intimacy with the sacred has subtly,
but mightily, contributed to this development. While insisting that nothing
has essentially been changed for the priest because he is still the one
who consecrates, the liturgical engineers have made his presence optional
at the most intimate moment of holy communion between the flock under his
care and Our Lord. The majority of Catholics receive the Eucharist from
the hands of a lay person. [This is a grave abuse.]
The
act of shared intimacy that is at the heart of shepherding ("Feed my lambs,
feed my sheep") is absent. The Church, echoing an increasingly feminized
society, is telling priests: "Once you have consecrated, you are no long
needed." The act of the priest "feeding" the faithful with the Bread of
Life incarnates his role as Its sole provider [once
again the role of the deacon is discounted by the author] and, far
more than the eye can see, forms his and his people's perception of his
spiritual fatherhood. The priest's role was never confined to the sanctuary,
but what made him unique to his people was his unique relationship to the
Eucharist which he brought forth from within the sanctuary.
[The very fact that the diaconate is continually marginalized by this argument
should make it abundantly clear that it is heretical at core.]

The commitment to celibacy in the Latin Rite was the tangible sign of
the Eucharistic "Christ-man." [How?] The entire
panoply described above is far more damaging to the celibate priest than
it is to the married priest. Unlike the married priest, he does not have
the benefit of the entire natural side of the psycho-sexual dynamic enjoyed
by a husband and father of children. The traditional role of the celibate
priest as the sole administrator of the sacred [once
more the diaconate is dismissed!] assisted him in sublimating his
natural desire for exclusivity with another in marriage, [How?]
and preserved his orientation toward his spiritual espousal to the Church
and his spiritual fatherhood. [But not, it is now
emerging, in sublimating his desire for altar boys!] In the present
situation, celibacy for many priests has begun to feel like something that
one puts on like a costume. It's not needed for the role in the play; it
just lends a bit of colour to the set. Interestingly, in the Eastern
Church, where there has been a tradition of a married priesthood,
there is no toleration of any transference of the spiritual tasks of the
priest to the laity.[Which further undermines
the author's argument!]

It would seem that matrimonial espousal and fatherhood enhance the understanding
of the requirements needed to maintain the relationship between authentic
maleness and spiritual fatherhood. [15] This may not be as odd as it first
sounds. [On the other hand it may be just as odd
as it sounds; and it sure sounds odd to me!] After Vatican II, the
revolution was not led by those priests who were actually exercising the
tasks of spiritual fatherhood on the parish level (in fact, many initially
resisted it). The priests whose natural habitat is the world of academia,
who have indicated a propensity to value their professorships at least
as highly as their priesthood, have been the agents promoting the dismantling
of the traditional structures that had protected the celibate priesthood.
Weak bishops unwilling to contradict their entrenched bureaucracies have
hidden behind these "experts." These periti have wielded unusual power
through their ability to influence and even direct the bishops who exercise
the heady authority of the apostles themselves.

Careerism and ambition rooted in pride have often served (always to
the detriment of spiritual vitality) as the "acceptable" substitutions
for sex for those called to celibacy and vows of chastity. One must
worry that those priests and bishops who have promoted role revision, although
they possess the office of spiritual fatherhood, are without a natural
disposition for it. The desire for power and status in the form of careerism
may easily eclipse the intensity of male concupiscence. Never having identified
primarily with the role of spiritual fatherhood, role revision caused them
no sense of loss. This mind-set has filtered down, and the icon of priest
[The
priest is an icon of Christ not of "spiritual father"!] as spiritual
father degenerates into the image of the "professional man," and celibates
for the kingdom are reduced to mere bachelors. The priest is increasingly
perceived as an ecclesiastical technician, and often lives down to that
role.

Some will think it odd that little in the way of theological reasoning
[Indeed
I do, and not just odd.] has been offered in this discussion of
the most sacred of subjects. As I have attempted to suggest, however, the
present situation is a historical novelty. Not only that, but in all candour
I must confess that I do not believe that arguing from historical precedent
by itself will cause many to pause today.
[The implication
that "theological reasoning" is equivalent to "historical precedent" indicates
a remarkable poverty of thought.] So much of what has occurred in
the past thirty years has been contrary to organic development that there
is no reason to be confident that such arguments in themselves will produce
any reflection.

However, a theological response that will be argued against the premise
of this article, especially the plea for the reservation of Eucharistic
stewardship to the priest alone, is that, due to the shortage of priests,
lay ministers and permanent deacons are necessary: "After all, the Eucharist
is meant for people; their ability to receive the sacrament, especially
in mission lands and in places experiencing severe priest shortages, far
outweighs any possible detrimental effect upon the celibate priesthood."
My initial response is that permanent deacons since the Council have not
been widely used in mission lands precisely because of the confusion that
the disconnect between Holy Orders and celibacy frequently engenders. [This
is a final and absolutely explicit rejection of the traditional liturgical
role of the deacon. It is clearly heterodox in character.]

Second, any practice that does harm to the natural connective tissue
that makes visible and apparent the unique bond between the Eucharist and
priesthood (expressed by the term, ordinary minister) [16], [and
the deacon is certainly an ordinary minister of Holy Communion!]
will not leave undiminished the supernatural effects of the sacrament.
Grace builds on nature and transforms it. However, if there exists an ecclesial
structure that disrupts the equilibrium between the natural and supernatural,
grace may lie fallow until that rupture is repaired. The reception of the
Eucharist, after all, is meant to benefit the entire Church, not just the
communicant. Therefore, if a part of the Church (the priesthood) is damaged
by the structural disorder encompassing the administration and reception
of the Sacrament, then the entire Church is weakened.
[I
concur.]

Many aspects of the Church's visible life cannot be changed without
assaulting the human element's participation in the sacred. One branch
of the Manichean heresy thought so little of the material world that it
believed it mattered not at all what kind of sins were committed with the
body as long as there remained a spiritual orientation towards Christ.
We risk institutional Manicheism if we continue to act as if we can do
whatever we like with the visible life of the Mystical Body without fear
of spiritual consequences. [I concur.]

I have argued that because grace builds on nature, if there is instituted
a wholesale ecclesial role revision without regard to the question of nature,
the grace necessary to integrate maleness, celibacy and office may well
lie dormant. There will simply be a disconnect among the emotions, intellect
and will. Those who disagree with what has been argued thus far will frequently
counter that the present discussion has been about mere "accidentals,"
unimportant in comparison to all the other problems in the Church.
[That
would be a silly argument.] Our Lord, however, began the Church
with the priesthood and the Eucharist. If what has been done in the past
thirty years is harmful to either, we are perilously close to the foundations
of the Church herself. The notion that the Church can offer the work of
the priest to others without doing harm to both his masculinity and his
personality is a gross presumption. It will affect the way he views his
life and commitment, as well as his beliefs and prayer.

One more observation about so-called "accidentals." The greatest mystery
in the world, the Eucharist, must be communicated through "accidents."
These accidents must be specific material substances that unambiguously
signify the Sacrament. What have heretofore been considered "accidents"
(mere discipline in the parlance of the legalists among us) in regard to
the functions that form and integrate priestly identity, may well be as
intrinsic to the communication of the reality of the priesthood - to the
priest himself as well as to the faithful - as is the appearance of bread
and wine to the Eucharist. [But in fact they are
not. It is known that a married priesthood and communion in the hand and
the ministry of the deacon are all authentic manifestations of Apostolic
Tradition].

The role revision of priest and laity has led to declining numbers
of vocations, despite the embarrassing efforts to "sell" the priesthood
through various Madison Avenue marketing techniques.[I
concur.] Even when there is a temporary spike in seminary registration
following a papal visit, there is no evidence that this initial fervour
persists. It is amazing to observe the contortions required by the public
relations departments of various episcopal conferences assuring us that
all is well with the local church, and at the same time gravely issuing
study papers concerning the projected shortage of priests and the inevitable
remedy of preparing the faithful for lay administered priestless parishes.
The bishops of England (mimicking similar rumblings among members of the
American episcopate) are asking the Pope to reinstate into full pastoral
status men who have left the active priesthood in order to marry [17].
The vocations crisis, created by the anti-masculine policies of the ecclesiological
revolution, is now blamed by the bishops on celibacy. Celibacy is a problem,
but only because the present structural environment of the Church has removed
those elements which traditionally have supported its compatibility with
a healthy masculine nature. [So this author asserts.]

Of course, it is possible that post-Conciliar Church authority, by institutionalizing
the role revision of priests and laity, has signalled its preference for
and agreement with the social engineering that has revolutionized so much
of Western culture and society. Or perhaps what has occurred has been a
thoughtless and unreflective drift. Either way, Church authority will discover
that, regardless of the traditional language that masks the altered structure,
the scriptural admonition against pouring old wine into new wineskins will
burst the self-deception. [I concur.]

Either traditional mandatory celibacy for priests or the present structure
that ignores its natural underpinnings: these are the mutually exclusive
options facing the Church. There is no middle way.
[Except,
of course, for the middle way currently in operation within the Eastern
Church.]

Notes
1. The Vatican signalled early on its growing indifference towards
celibacy within Holy Orders by permitting widowed permanent deacons to
remarry. This contradicted an ancient practice that even the Eastern Church,
which permits a married clergy, does not allow.
2. John M. Haas, a convert and former member of the Episcopal clergy,
in a pamphlet entitled Marriage and the Priesthood (New Rochelle, NY: Scepter
Press, 1987), voiced caution in regard to what had become an institutionalized
policy by the Vatican's "Pastoral Provision" of 1982: "I knew full well
that there were occasions when the Holy See permitted the ordination of
married men to the priesthood. It was allowed ... out of pastoral considerations
for Protestant clergymen who later came to the Faith. But through my reflections
I came to see why this was historically the exception rather than the norm."
3. During the late 1980s, the Holy See requested the Commission on
the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law to review the possibility
of formally admitting women to these ministries. At one point, some months
after their deliberations began, I asked a member of the Commission about
the pending decision. He replied that the Commission's response had been
on the desk of the Secretary of State for some time. Though unable to reveal
the decision of the Commission, he seemed to indicate his own position
(and possibly that of others in the group) when, after my pressing him
for an opinion on the matter, he replied that women could not be admitted
ministries because they were preparatory steps toward the priesthood. I
expressed my surprise and asked about Ministeria Quaedam (Pope Paul's 1972
decree that separated the ministries from their intrinsic connection to
the priesthood and opened them up to laymen). He gave no reply. The implication
was that there were some in Rome who considered that decree very problematical.
The outcome has followed a well-worn Vatican path of recent times. The
findings were shrouded in silence, the same treatment rendered to the decision
of a Vatican commission that had determined the traditional Mass had never
been abrogated. Present speculation has it that the Vatican plans to admit
women to these ministries. What seems more likely (and calamitous) is that
Rome will create a non-sacramental but formal order of Deaconess that would
incorporate the roles of pastoral administrator and assistant, lector and
acolyte.
4. This is not an unimportant development, though it drew little notice.
It is difficult to understand why the Vatican would see a problem with
terminology without seeing the more important one of concept. This has
been a pattern, however, that has governed post-Conciliar Vatican policy:
endorse a substantial change in traditional practice, but avoid the use
of any term that would indicate a deviation from traditional language.
5. Deacons in the Latin Rite who distributed the Eucharist prior to
the decree, Ministeria Quaedam, were always celibate [Except
for the first few hundred years of the Church's history.] and in
a transition period awaiting priestly ordination. [This
is simply untrue. St Francis of Assisi remained a deacon until his death.
In as far as it was true, it was an abuse. The diaconate is an order in
its own right and is not a transition state prior to presbyterial ordination.
This is in no way to call into question the venerable and sensible normative
practice of insisting that anyone who is to be ordained a priest should
first serve a term as deacon.]6. Interestingly, the question of why priests are not displaying greater
discontent over the assumption of their duties has been raised by a layman.
See Joseph H. Foegen, "Questions for Pastors," Homiletic and Pastoral Review
(November 1995).
7. Even during those periods in the history of the Church which witnessed
an active diaconal office, the deacon was celibate [This
is simply not true. The deacon was no more required to be celibate than
was the pope, bishop or presbyter.] and was utilized mainly as a
direct assistant to the bishop. He was not an ordinary minister of the
Eucharist. [This is a lie.] The creation of
the married permanent diaconate eliminated the entwined and inseparable
relationship among priesthood, celibacy and exclusive Eucharistic stewardship
that had been [more accurately: become] the
norm [for good or ill] in the Western Church.
8. Even though there are many priests, the usage of the phrase, "exclusive
intimacy," for that which existed between the priest and the Eucharist
is appropriate [How so? Apparently we have an unexclusive
exclusivity]. Each priest was aware that every brother priest received
the commission to be the guardian of the Presence of Him Whose priesthood
they all shared. It was precisely this unique relationship with the Eucharist
that was a key link in the bond among priests [So
priests formed a kind of harem, it would seem!]. The acquisition
of this privilege by lay ministers has seriously contributed to the decline
in priestly camaraderie. [But might have helped priests
to develop better relationships with lay folk!]9. This liturgical mutation was captured vividly in a video cassette,
Leading the Community in Prayer: The Art Presiding for Deacons and Lay
Persons produced by Liturgical Press in 1989. It displayed on the jacket
a picture of a woman "presiding" at a Communion service, dressed in an
alb, with a male server holding the book, as she extends her hands in prayer.
10. Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex, Culture, and Myth (New York:Harcourt,
Brace & World, 1962).
11. It is not being suggested that literal biological fatherhood is
a prerequisite for "paternal certainty." [But this
is exactly the anthropological point. Unfortunately, it is my experience
in talking with fathers that they typically feel a need to know that their
children are genetically their offspring.] What is being conveyed
is that for a man to assume the role of a father, there must be no
question that, in all things [note all things]
other than genetics, the one with whom he enters into a paternal relationship
is unambiguously "his" child.
[And what exactly does
this mean? As soon as the child goes to school, he or she also becomes
the pupil of various teachers and may feel that any number of them have
a fatherhood role in his/her life. Similarly the natural father's fatherhood
is compromised as soon as the child comes into contact with a priest who
exercises spiritual fatherhood.] This would have application to
the spiritual fatherhood of the priest who is "Father" in the order of
grace rather than nature.
12. This phenomenon is not confined to the managerial model. Often,
other secular identifications are adopted, i.e., "priest-therapist," "priest-educator,"
etc. These new roles may explain why priests are encouraging women to appropriate
roles heretofore reserved to their office. Women, being nurturers by nature,
are more than willing to cooperage. The result for the heterosexual celibate,
however, is the exchange of his sense of spiritual fatherhood for that
of a "professional bachelor."
13. David Blankenthorn, Fatherless America (New York: Harper Collins,
1995).
14. This is hardly to suggest that every case of aberrant sexual behaviour
is caused by the present ecclesial environment. The ecclesial structure,
for a variety of reasons that would require an entirely separate discussion,
is also attracting the walking wounded.
15. It does not follow that a married priesthood, in se, protects the
sacred prerogatives of a priest more effectively than a celibate one. When
celibacy and bachelorhood become ecclesial synonyms, however, there is
a corresponding occlusion of paternal sensibilities that would have developed
and matured had the mutation not occurred. Grace builds on nature (thus
it can preserve the authentic masculine and paternal sensibilities of the
married priest through the natural environment of family life), but it
also transforms nature, and preserves the masculine and paternal in the
priest who properly orders celibacy towards the Kingdom (as opposed to
allowing it to degenerate into nothing more than the single "alternative
lifestyle").
16. It should be noted that the Council of Trent posits that, "It has
always been the custom in the Church of God that lay persons receive Communion
from priests." Council of Trent, sess. XIII. cap. VIII, De usu admirabilis
hujus sacramenti. "Semper in ecclesia Dei mos fuit, or laici a sacerdotibus
communionem acciperent."
17. Catholic World Report Vol. 7 (October 1997).

Anyone who will read the article ''Emasculation
of the Priesthood'', will find it complicated. I do not, of course, agree
with the author's negative remark about ''homosexuality and other sexual
aberrations'' amongst priests being the result of post-conciliar changes.
Homosexuality is not an aberration. Nor do I believe that the catholic
priesthood was ever necessarily better off with an obligatory celibacy.
Nor am I totally convinced by the masculinity arguments.

However the author does make several points which
are nearly impossible not to agree with, and I as a priest can confirm
thetruth of these assertions: Celibacy was
much easier to bear, and made much more sense, until thirty or so years
ago, when the priest had an undisputed and exclusive relationship with
the Altar, when only he could open the tabernacle, expose the blessed Sacrament,
distribute Holy Communion, bring Him to the sick and dying; when the priest
was truly a spiritual nurturer, a pastor of souls, rather than a professional
man who happens to be a bachelor. People complain often that they find
the new style priests, who dress, talk and act like hurried businessmen,
to be cold, uncaring and unpriestly.

With Vatican permission, laymen have intruded
into the task proper to the ordained priest: that of feeding the faithful
with the fruit of the Mass. Thereby Communion has been divorced from the
Sacrifice. This divorce of Offer from the Altar has led to a diseased situation.
Here in Holland, laymen and laywomen regularly play at priest by presiding
at ''Communion services'', even forbidding ordained priests to celebrate
Mass in the churches where they preside. The Bishops do nothing to
stop the abuse. Some lay ''pastoral workers'' or ''pastores'' as they call
themselves, even distribute unconsecrated hosts, saying that nobody can
see the difference anyway. Often, the faithful take an extra Host with
them to bring to hospital or to private homes, as the priest is no longer
expected to visit the ill and dying. Some deacons and lay people even perform
an invalid anointing of the sick! Many priests keep themselves busy with
all kinds of meetings and ecumenical activities, whilst powerful lay persons
have taken over most sacred functions.

In the church where I celebrate Mass on Tuesdays,
I am not allowed to say Mass on any other weekday because on other days
there are lay-led "Word and Communion services." The lay ''pastoral workers''
involved refuse to allow their services to be substituted by a Mass (and
this is a widespread phenomenon). So on the other weekdays I celebrate
Mass at home, which is all very frustrating, and makes enforced celibacy
feel even more unnecessary and painfully senseless than it otherwise would
be. On Sundays, thank God, I travel to other cities to celebrate the Mass
for groups of traditional Catholics, who truly long for theMass,
and who appreciate the priest who brings it to them.

This one thing - the post-conciliar permission
for lay people to violate the Sacrament (by receiving it on their hand)
and theAltar (by being allowed to play priest
at ''Communion services'') - like a vicious circle, has so contributed
to a loss of identity and purpose amongst priests, and to a subsequent
loss of vocations, that the lay extraordinary ministers have made themselves
an almost indispensable substitution for the ordained priests who are dying
out. The abuses are now becoming the rule. Rightly the author says that
celibacy in this new context makes no sense at all.

The author curiously admits that where there is
also a married priesthood (the eastern rites), there has been no loss of
sacredness, no divorce between Altar of Sacrifice and Holy Table of Communion.
Thus, obligatory celibacy is not necessary to the sacredness of the Eucharist
and the whole sacramental order, but obligatory celibacy can only exist
when that sacredness is maintained. Stronger still, the priesthood itself,
even a married Catholic priesthood, can only exist where that sacredness
is guaranteed and fostered by the Hierarchy. Another acute observation
of the author is that it was not the parish priests who orchestrated the
post-conciliar changes to the Mass, Sacraments and Priesthood, but the
academic regular clergy (Dominicans, Jesuits and other such) who had much
less contact with the faithful, and whose spiritual fatherhood was more
theoretical than practical.

I often ask myself, why so much emphasis on celibacy,
as if that were the main - or worse yet, the only criterion for evaluating
a candidate to the priesthood? Is one ordained to the priesthood, or to
the celibate state?

The secular priest is not a sort of monk who happens
not to live in a monastery. The priesthood does not exist for the personal
sanctification of the priest - anyone can readily obtain all the graces
they need as a lay(wo)man. If one is seeking a stricter way of life, a
narrower path to sanctification - the that is what the monastic, religious
or consecrated life is for. The priesthood is a function within the Church
and for the Church. For the building up of the Church, and not for the
personal benefit of the ordinand.

The Church has two main goals - the Glorification
of God through the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sanctification
or deification of souls through the administration of the sacraments. The
ordained priesthood is needed in order to carry out these two goals. We
all need to stop confusing priesthood with consecrated state of life
- whether private or communal. In the eastern rites of the Catholic Church
married men are also ordained to the priesthood. That was once also the
practice in the Latin Church, and might well be so once again. In that
perspective the question of whether a gay man be as faithful to celibacy
as a straight man can no longer be posed. Most men it seems to me - both
gay or straight - find the unmarried state eventually unsatisfying, and
a sexless life - unbearable. But if enough incentive is there - then a
small number of both gay and straight men can remain unmarried, and even
without sex.

I think that the incentive within the catholic
priesthood to want to be celibate is simply no longer present, due mainly
to thepolicies of the Hierarchy themselves
in the past thirty five years. The whole question of no longer ordaining
gay men to the priesthood is really a non-question, a camouflage for much
graver but unspeakable questions, which if left unspoken, will fester until
they tear the Church apart from within. Alas.

PS. There are also
many gay priests in those churches where celibacy is not the rule - orthodox,
anglican, old-catholic. Can it not be that God prefers gay men as priests,
that gay men posses qualities which render them more suitable to carrying
out thepriestly functions? Are we gay men
the born-eunuchs which our Lord spoke of?